glowhunter wrote:
amazing images. I wonder where are all the naysayers that said the 105 was flat, lacked, pop, wasn't 3d enough for them.
I honestly think a lot of the discussion comes down to miscommunication. Having read through some (only some cos a lot of it really is BS) of the 3D pop posts, it seems to me the attribute most associated with 3D pop is a rapid transition from in-focus to out of focus hence the subject appears to 'pop' out.
And this was mistaken for some Nikon literature describing the 58G and 105E with respect to the term 3D. Sato specifically talks about a gradual transition and avoiding a sudden drop to defocus as a design goal.
So referring to 3D, the two groups are talking about 2 opposite attributes.
Just goes to show how differently people see.
For the record, I'm firmly in the Sato camp, preferring the gradual focus transition zone.
So, for the second time I purchased this monster and its sitting on my desk unopened. Traded in my 135 dc for credit towards it and I am still uncomfortable about the purchase. I can't figure out what it is. I think it's because I know sigma will eventually release something better for less and I hate being a sucker.
Depth of Feel wrote:
So, for the second time I purchased this monster and its sitting on my desk unopened. Traded in my 135 dc for credit towards it and I am still uncomfortable about the purchase. I can't figure out what it is. I think it's because I know sigma will eventually release something better for less and I hate being a sucker.
oh come on man, just open er up and shoot! At the end of the day it's only money. If it makes you feel any better, I bent over 3x for Nikon this month. First with this lens, then a D810, then finally a 24-70 VR. Damnit I could've bought a car with that money
Joseph. wrote:
oh come on man, just open er up and shoot! At the end of the day it's only money. If it makes you feel any better, I bent over 3x for Nikon this month. First with this lens, then a D810, then finally a 24-70 VR. Damnit I could've bought a car with that money
I did rent it and do 3 different paid shoots with it. The stuff in focus is pretty nice, but I didn't get it fine tuned before shooting. The images at 1.4 have a melted glass look to them. Bright images look ghostly (not ghosting.) I wasn't really impressed with it indoors. Outdoors with natural backgrounds it does very well.
What I noticed is when comparing images on my shoots with the rental that it is a very special unique lens. But it's definitely not a swiss army knife that my sigma 50 art is. I wouldn't call the 105 a story telling lens.
The way I looked at it, is I'll get my money's worth doing family stuff this fall and if I continue to feel weird about it I'll sell in December and basically have a 3 month rental for cheapish after the costs balance out. By then I'll know if the 85 art is worth anything. Heck by the time Sigma release a 135 1.8 I'll be able to trade this in for that and 85 art.
i'm not a 58 fan, although i do see it's special niche come shining thru from time to time. this one is amazingly cool. the depth-fade is magical whereas the 105 just obliterates and my mind finds itself puzzled and unhappy.
duet wrote:
Great photos! How was your experience with AF speed with 105?
i had no issues with the AF Speed. I am not a sport photographer so am not used to any AF speed struggles that many may have or need so I had 0 expectations going in to use this lens.
I found it easy to use and navigate around the field and get the shot i wanted. I really only concerned myself more with the exposure since some shots were back lit and others were front lit.
At the end of the day it's only money. If it makes you feel any better, I bent over 3x for Nikon this month. First with this lens, then a D810, then finally a 24-70 VR. Damnit I could've bought a car with that money 
